Playing to Win

Playing to Win describes strategy as a set of linked choices rather than a plan or a list of goals. The framework was developed by Roger Martin, a former dean of the Rotman School of Management, and A.G. Lafley, during Lafley's time as chief executive of Procter & Gamble, where they used it to guide the company's strategy in the 2000s. They set it out in their 2013 book Playing to Win: How Strategy Really Works, and it has since become one of the most widely used strategy frameworks in business.

At its core is the strategic choice cascade, five questions that every strategy must answer. Each choice shapes and is shaped by the others, so a good strategy is one in which all five fit together. For strategy and planning teams, Playing to Win offers a practical structure for developing a strategy, testing whether it is coherent and communicating it clearly at every level of the organization.

Definition of Playing to Win

Playing to Win is a strategy framework that defines strategy as an integrated set of choices that uniquely positions an organization in its industry so as to create sustainable advantage and superior value, expressed through five linked questions known as the strategic choice cascade.

It is a way of developing business strategy and can be applied at the corporate, business unit and functional levels, connecting to corporate strategy at the top.

The Strategic Choice Cascade

What is our winning aspiration? This defines the purpose of the organization and what winning means, often in terms of customers and competitive position.

Where will we play? This defines the markets, customer segments, channels, geographies and product categories in which the organization will compete, and by implication those it will not.

How will we win? This defines the value proposition and competitive advantage that will allow the organization to win in the chosen places, such as lower cost or differentiation.

What capabilities must be in place? This defines the activities and skills the organization must excel at to deliver its way of winning.

What management systems are required? This defines the processes, structures, measures and systems needed to build and sustain the capabilities and track the strategy.

Key Ideas in Playing to Win

Strategy is about choice. A strategy that does not exclude any options is not a strategy. Saying no to some opportunities is what allows the organization to concentrate on others.

The heart of strategy is the combination of where to play and how to win. These two choices must reinforce each other.

The cascade applies at every level. Each business unit and function can develop its own cascade, nested within the one above it.

Strategy is iterative. Leaders move back and forth between the questions, testing and refining choices until they fit together.

Importance of Playing to Win in Strategic Planning

Playing to Win focuses strategy on choices. It discourages vague goals and long lists of priorities, pushing leaders to decide what the organization will and will not do.

It tests coherence. Asking whether the five choices fit together reveals strategies that look good in parts but do not work as a whole.

It also improves communication. The five questions give a simple, memorable structure for explaining the strategy to employees, partners and investors.

Playing to Win and Financial Management

Where-to-play choices determine which markets and segments receive investment, guiding capital allocation across the business.

How-to-win choices shape the cost structure. A low-cost strategy demands tight cost control, while a differentiation strategy may justify higher spending on product quality, brand or service.

Capabilities and management systems often require investment, such as new technology or skills, which should be funded in proportion to their importance to the strategy.

Financial measures form part of the management systems that track whether the strategy is working, alongside customer and operational measures.

Common Challenges

Organizations sometimes answer the questions with broad statements that do not exclude anything, which defeats the purpose of the framework.

Leaders may focus heavily on where to play and how to win while neglecting the capabilities and management systems needed to make the strategy real.

Cascades developed at different levels may not connect, leaving business unit or functional strategies at odds with the overall strategy.